Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Motor Vehicle”).

B. On June 15, 2019, around 14:04, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the two lanes of the five lanes in front of the 616-lane-dong, Nam-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-dong, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the front side, and the vehicle was parked on the front side. However, the Defendant’s vehicle running ahead of the two-lane changed the front side to three-lanes, leading to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading to the change to the three-lanes, leading to the direction of the direction. Accordingly, the following parts of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On July 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,090,000 (the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle based on the standard value table for vehicles of the Korea Insurance Development Institute) to the Plaintiff’s vehicle insured due to the instant accident, and returned KRW 880,000 to the remainder.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The instant accident did not properly verify the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in the direction of the alteration in the course of the Defendant’s vehicle, but did not turn on the direction direction direction, etc. in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The instant accident was caused by a mistake in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in a situation where it did not turn on the direction direction.

Recognizing recognition (see Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 38(1) of the Road Traffic Act). Meanwhile, the Defendant would have driven the vehicle while driving the vehicle in a more depth with the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, on the other hand, on the premise that the vehicle of the left side would be able to change the course to the frontline of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, like the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the vehicle.